Solution Manual for Engineering Design Process 3rd Edition Haik Sivaloganathan

and Shahin ISBN 1305253280 9781305253285

Full link download
Solution Manual: https://testbankpack.com/p/solution-manual-for-engineering-
design-process-3rd-edition-haik-sivaloganathan-and-shahin-isbn-1305253280-
9781305253285/
Chapter 2
1. Table 2.3 breaks down the number of major jobs or activities involved in painting a
two-story house.

(a) Develop a CPM network.

(b) Determine the critical path of the network.

A-C-D-E-G-H-J-K

(c) Determine the expected project’s duration time period.

26 weeks

TABLE 2.3 Problem 1

Activity Identification Predecessor Duration

Contract signed A — 2

Purchase of material B A 2

Ladder and staging in site C A 2

Preparation of surface D C,B 5

Base coat complete E D 6

Base coat inspected F E 2

Trim coat complete G E 5

Trim coat inspected H G,F 2

Final inspection I H 2

Removal of staging J H 2

Final cleanup K I,J 2

2. Assume that the optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic activity times are as given in
Table 2.4.

(a) Complete the table.

+ 4T + T
T =T o m p

e 6
T - T
Use s = p o

6
V=s2

(b) Determine the probability of finishing the job in 32 weeks.

D-T 32 - 32.33
Z= e = = -0.07
s4.66

TABLE 2.4 Problem 2

Pessimistic Most Likely Optimistic Expected Variance

Time

3 2 1 2 0.11

3 2 1 2 0.11

3 2 1 2 0.11

7 5 3 5 0.44
9 6 4 6.17 0.69

3 2 1 2 0.11

7 5 4 5.17 0.25

3 2 1 2 0.11

3 2 1 2 0.11

3 2 1 2 0.11

3 2 1 2 0.11

3. You should work on this activity during lab hours.

(a) Develop a CPM network and determine the critical path for the events defined
in the Gantt chart in Figure 2.1.
(b) Develop a Gantt chart for the events defined in Table 2.2.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Task A
Task B
Task C
Task D
Task E
Task F
Task G
Task H

(c) For the events defined in Table 2.5,

i. Complete the table.

ii. Draw the PERT network.

Another document from Scribd.com that is
random and unrelated content:
the very portrait in question—it rather seems to have been drawn after
Holbein saw a little with the king’s eyes. I have seen that picture in the
cabinet of the present Mr. Barrett, of Lee, and think it the most
exquisitely perfect of all Holbein’s works as well as in the highest
preservation. The print gives a very inadequate idea of it, and none of her
Flemish fairness. It is preserved in the ivory box in which it came over,
and which represents a rose, so delicately carved as to be worthy of the
jewel it contains.”[389]
389. Walpole, Anecdotes, ed. Wornum, i. p. 72, note.

It is not known in what way this miniature,[390] together with the

companion portrait of Henry VIII,[391] in a similar ivory box, in the late
Mr. Pierpont Morgan’s collection, came into the possession of the Barrett
family. They were offered for sale by auction in 1757, but bought in; and
subsequently sold by Mr. T. B. Barrett in 1826 to a dealer named Tuck,
who resold them for fifty guineas to Francis Douce, by whom they were
bequeathed, in 1834, to Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick, of Goodrich Court. At
a later date the miniature of Anne of Cleves was bequeathed by General
Meyrick to Miss Davies, from whom it was acquired by the late Mr.
George Salting. This miniature follows very closely the portrait in the
Louvre, though there are slight differences in the details and colour of
the dress. The background is blue, without inscription. It is in water-
colours, and is 1¾ in. in diameter. It was from this miniature, which is
regarded as an undoubted work by Holbein, that Houbraken engraved, in
1739, the portrait of Anne for his “Illustrious Heads.”
390. Woltmann, 158. Reproduced by Ganz, Holbein, p. 148 (2); and in Burlington Fine Arts
Club Exhibition Catalogue, Pl. xxxii.

391. Woltmann, 157. See p. 235.

When the Louvre picture was in the Arundel Collection it was etched
by Hollar, but reversed. This print is 9¼ in. by 7 in., and is dated 1648
and inscribed—“Anna Clivensis, Henrici VIII Regis Angliæ Uxor IIIIta.
H Holbein pinxit. Wenceslaus Hollar fecit aqua forti, ex Collectione
Arundeliana, A. 1648.”[392]
392. Parthey, 1343. There is a second print by Hollar, of the same year, taken from a picture or
drawing in the Arundel Collection, of a lady in profile to the right, wearing a flat black cap,
which, it has been suggested, also represents Anne of Cleves (Parthey, 1545). The likeness
is not very apparent, nor does the original appear to have been by Holbein, as Hollar states.
It is reproduced by Dr. Ganz, Holbein, p. 198 (2).
 V . II., P 24
ANNE OF CLEVES
 1539
L ,P

OTHER
There are several other portraits in existence which
PORTRAITS OF are said, with little authority, to represent Anne of
ANNE OF Cleves; among them a drawing in the Windsor
CLEVES
Collection,[393] which appears at one time to have
become separated from the others. It came into the possession of Dr.
Meade, and at his sale in 1755 was bought by Mr. Chetwynd. After the
latter’s death it was restored by his executors to the royal collection. It
bears little or no resemblance to the Louvre portrait, and is almost
certainly a likeness of some English lady. She is shown full-face, with a
close-fitting cap covering the ears, and a hat over it. The drawing has
been damaged by having been cut out round the outline. The face is a
refined one. There are notes in German as to the material and colours of
the dress, and the pattern of the Spanish work on the collar is drawn in
detail on the margin. It has no inscription. In the National Portrait
Exhibition at South Kensington in 1865, a small head of “Anne of
Cleves” was exhibited by the Earl of Derby. It was in oil on panel, oval,
about 3 in. by 2½ in., and signed “H. H.” It had been injured, and was
then in a somewhat dirty condition; the face had considerable likeness to
the Louvre picture.[394]
393. Woltmann, 357; Wornum, not included; Holmes, ii. 2.

394. Wornum, p. 330, note.

There is, however, one other portrait in addition to the Louvre panel
which is a contemporary likeness of Anne of Cleves, though not by
Holbein. This is the small picture in St. John’s College, Oxford, a fine
work by some unknown painter of the Flemish School. It is a half-length,
standing three-quarters to the left, behind a parapet upon which lie an
orange and a pair of jewelled gloves. The head-dress is of cloth of gold
and white gauze, the latter worked with the motto, “A ,” as in
the Louvre picture. She is wearing a low-cut dress of striped gold and
black, filled in with white with embroidered bands, gold and jewelled
necklaces, and a pendant cross, and several rings on her fingers. Her left
hand is placed against her waistbelt, and in her right she holds three
carnations. The background is dark, with a small canopy or curtain over
her head. It is on panel with arched top, 19¾ in. by 14¼ in. The costume
is of the same style and period as the Louvre portrait, though it differs in
numerous small details, more particularly in the colours of the materials,
the shape of the sleeves, and the jewelled bands of the head-dress. The
general tone of colour is golden, and there is excellent painting in all the
details of the elaborate costume. It was included in the Oxford Exhibition
of Historical Portraits in 1904 (No. 30), and was one of the most
interesting pictures in the collection.[395] As a likeness it bears a strong
resemblance to Holbein’s portrait, and if not of Anne may well be of her
sister. The suggestion may be hazarded that it is one of the two portraits,
painted six months before Holbein and Beard were in Düren, which
Olisleger had promised to procure for Henry VIII’s ambassadors,
portraits which Beard, apparently, took with him to London early in July
1539.
395. Reproduced in the Oxford Catalogue, p. 24; Burlington Magazine, vol. v., May 1904, p.
214. A very similar picture was lent by Dr. Wickham Flower to the New Gallery Winter
Exhibition, 1899-1900, No. 44, as a work of the Early Flemish School. It was described in
the catalogue as: “Half-length, turned towards left, habited in a rich Flemish costume of
gold tissue covered with jewellery; head-dress ornamented with pearls, and inscribed with
the motto ‘A bon fine’; in her right hand she holds a red carnation; flat green background.
Painted on vellum and strained on fine canvas, 15 in. × 14 in. This portrait is supposed to
have been executed by a Flemish painter a year or two previous to Anne’s marriage in
1540.”

There is no need even to touch upon the concluding stages of this

miserable story, with which Holbein had nothing to do. Henry married
Anne at Greenwich on January 6, 1540, and finally divorced her on July
12 in the same year. She settled at Richmond in the enjoyment of the
rank of a princess and a pension of £3000 a year, and survived the King
by ten years, dying in 1557.
 CHAPTER XXIV
THE LAST YEARS: 1540-1543

Holbein’s work at Whitehall—His residence in the parish of St. Andrew Undershaft

—In high favour at court—Payments of his salary—Possible visit to Basel—Portraits
and miniatures of Catherine Howard—Portraits of the Duke of Norfolk—The Earl of
Surrey—Unknown men at Berlin and Vienna—Unknown Englishman at the Hague—
Earl of Southampton—Unknown man, aged 54, at Berlin—Unknown English lady at
Vienna—Simon George—Dr. John Chamber—Sir William and Lady Butts—
Unknown Englishman at Basel—Young English lady in the collection of Count
Lanckoronski—Lady Rich—Holbein’s self-portraits—A newly-discovered one at
Basel—Portraits, now lost, etched by Hollar—The Duke of Buckingham’s Collection.

hough there is no actual evidence in support of the statement

of the older writers that Holbein, after he entered the royal
service, had the use of a permanent studio in Whitehall
Palace, granted to him by the King, there is every
possibility that such was the case. “One of the earliest of
the famous non-royal residents in Whitehall Palace,” says Dr. Edgar
Sheppard, “was the artist Holbein. He had been presented to Henry VIII
by Sir Thomas More, and the King assigned him a permanent suite of
apartments in Whitehall, and commissioned him to paint the interior of
the new Palace, for which work he received two hundred florins per
annum.”[396] While the great wall-painting in the Privy Chamber was in
progress, it would be necessary for him to have a room for his own use
within the building, for the storage of the materials required for the work,
and it is not impossible that he was permitted to retain the room as his
own, perhaps one of those over the so-called “Holbein’s Gate,” for the
short remainder of his life, more particularly as his practice was almost
entirely confined to the court, so that a studio in Whitehall would best
suit the convenience both of the painter and his sitters.[397] That he had
a “permanent suite of apartments” there, as Dr. Sheppard states, is much
less probable. This would indicate residence, whereas it is known that
during his last years he occupied a house in the east of London.
396. The Old Royal Palace of Whitehall, 1901, p. 266.

397. See Appendix (M).

It is doubtful, too, whether Holbein carried out any important

decorative work in the Palace beyond the famous wall-painting already
described.[398] According to a curious entry in Pepys’ Diary, under the
date August 28, 1668, which is not easy to understand, the room known
as the Matted Gallery had a painted ceiling of Holbein’s handiwork. The
passage runs as follows: “With much difficulty, by candle-light, walked
over the matted gallery, as it is now with the mats and boards all taken
up, so that we walked over the rafters. But strange to see how hard
matter the plaister of Paris is, that is there taken up, as hard as stone!
And pity to see Holben’s work in the ceiling blotted on, and only whited
over!” The exact sense of the concluding words is not very clear, but
Pepys appears to mean that the ceiling had been formerly painted by
Holbein, and that, having become damaged in course of time, it had
recently been given a coat of whitewash. The ceiling was probably
decorated with coloured plaster-work in relief, and though Holbein may
have supplied the design, and may even have been responsible for the
painting, it is much more likely that the plaster-work itself was done by
some Italian, such as Nicolas Beilin of Modena, who had carried out
similar undertakings at Fontainebleau.
398. In 1576 Johann Fischart, quoted by Ganz, Holbein, p. xxxviii., in a description of the
Palace, speaks of several of the galleries as decorated on both sides with fine emblematic
histories, and actions and stories in the style of Michelangelo and Holbein. Henry
Peacham, in his Graphicè (1606), and again in The Compleat Gentleman (1634), speaks of
works by Holbein in Whitehall. He says: “He painted the Chappell at White-Hall, and S.
James, Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus rising from the dead, &c., were his.” (See The
Compleat Gentleman, ed. G. S. Gordon, 1906, p. 128. Also Walpole, Anecdotes, ed.
Wornum, i. p. 82.) There is a drawing in the British Museum representing Henry VIII
seated at table under a lofty canopy, in a large chamber, with a number of standing
courtiers in attendance, which appears to be a sixteenth-century copy of a preliminary
study by Holbein for a wall-decoration, possibly for one of the rooms in Whitehall. It is
inscribed “Holbein Invent.” Reproduced by Ganz, Holbein, p. 183.

“DANCE OF The legend that Holbein also painted a “Dance of

DEATH” AT Death,” composed of life-size figures, upon the walls
WHITEHALL of one of the rooms in Whitehall, is probably pure
fiction, or, at least, there is much less to be said in its favour than for
Pepys’ attribution of the ceiling in the Matted Gallery to the painter. The
writer who first gave currency to the story was Francis Douce, in his
“Dance of Death,” published in 1833. According to his statement, “very
soon after the calamitous fire at Whitehall in 1697,[399] which
consumed nearly the whole of that palace, a person, calling himself T.
Nieuhoff Piccard, probably belonging to the household of William III,
and a man who appears to have been an amateur artist,”[400] made
etchings after nineteen of the cuts in the Lyon “Dance of Death.”
Impressions of these etchings, accompanied with manuscript dedications,
are said to have been presented by this Piccard to his friends and patrons,
and among others to a Mynheer Heymans, and to the “high, noble, and
well-born Lord William Denting, Lord of Rhoon, Pendreght,” &c. In
these addresses Piccard speaks of a “wall-painting” of the “Dance” by
Holbein which he himself had seen in Whitehall. In the dedication to
Heymans he says:
399. Should be 1698.

400. Holbein’s Dance of Death, ed. 1858, p. 124.

“Sir,—The costly palace of Whitehall, erected by Cardinal Wolsey, and the

residence of King Henry VIII, contains, among other performances of art, a Dance of
Death, painted by Holbein in its galleries, which, through an unfortunate
conflagration, has been reduced to ashes.”

In the dedication to “Lord William Benting” Piccard is more precise:

“Sir,—In the course of my constant love and pursuit of works of art, it has been my
good fortune to meet with that scarce little work of Hans Holbein neatly engraved on
wood, and which he himself had painted as large as life in fresco on the walls of
Whitehall.”

As far as can be ascertained, there is not the slightest truth in this

legend. Nothing is known as to the identity of Heymans, but Lord
William Benting was evidently William Bentinck (1704-1774), of Rhoon
and Pendrecht in Holland, and Terrington St. Clements, Norfolk, third
son of Hans William Bentinck, first Earl of Portland, and a Count of the
Holy Roman Empire. Douce, who gave undeserved authority to this
story, made no attempt to trace the history of the manuscript “addresses”
which accompanied the etchings, and though he saw them, does not say
to whom they then belonged, or even in what language they were
written. They may be safely set down as forgeries, as far as any wall-
paintings of the “Dance of Death” by Holbein are concerned. Piccard,
whoever he may have been, is the sole authority for the existence of
these mythical works, which are not mentioned by Van Mander or
Sandrart, or by any of the foreign travellers who visited this country in
their descriptions of Whitehall, though the wall-painting of Henry VIII
with his wife and parents in the same palace is more than once spoken of
in such records in terms of high praise. Both Pepys and Evelyn are
equally silent on the subject, though the latter mentions the “Dance of
Death” woodcuts, and ascribes them to Holbein by name. “We have
seen,” he says, “some few things cut in wood by the incomparable Hans
Holbein the Dane, but they are rare and exceedingly difficult to come by;
as his Licentiousnesse of the Friers and Nuns; Erasmus; Moriae
Encomium; the Trial and Crucifixion of Christ; The Daunce
Macchabree; the Mortis Imago, which he painted in great in the Church
at Basil, and afterwards graved with no lesse art.”[401] What he says is
by no means free from mistakes, but as, in speaking of a visit paid to
Whitehall in 1656, he describes the condition of the large wall-painting
of the two kings Henry VII and Henry VIII, and their consorts, it is not
probable that he would have failed to mention any other important wall-
paintings in the palace had they existed. Douce thought he had
discovered a corroboration of Piccard’s story in an entry in Van der
Doort’s catalogue of Charles I’s collection, which runs: “A little piece,
where Death with a green garland about his head, stretching both his
arms to apprehend a Pilate in the habit of one of the spiritual Prince-
Electors of Germany. Copied by Isaac Oliver from Holbein”; but this, no
doubt, was painted from the woodcut of the Elector in the Lyon “Dance
of Death,” and not from a large wall-painting.
401. Evelyn, Sculptura, ed. 1769, p. 69.

As already stated, though Holbein may have had a workroom within

the precincts of Whitehall, his permanent home in London was
elsewhere. The public records show that in 1541 he was living in the
parish of St. Andrew Undershaft, in Aldgate Ward. How long he had
been there is not known, but possibly for the greater part of his second
sojourn in England. This information is contained in a subsidy roll for
the City of London, dated 24th October, 33 Hen. VIII (1541). Among the
“straungers” taxed were:
“Barnadyne xxx. s.
Buttessey, xxx. li.
Hanns Holbene in iij. li.”
fee, xxx. li.

Why Holbein was obliged to pay twice the amount charged to

Buttessey on an equal assessment of £30 a year is explained by the fact
that in these subsidies it was usual to tax “lands, fees, and annuities,” at
double the rate of goods. “In the royal accounts,” says Sir Augustus W.
Franks, “the payments to Holbein are sometimes noticed as wages,
sometimes as an annuity; while other payments of a similar kind,
although fees or annuities, are included under the general term “wages,”
and evidently looked upon as synonymous terms for the salaries paid by
the King to various members of his household. In any case, the salary of
Holbein, the painter, rendered him liable to be rated, as a foreigner, at the
high amount above-mentioned.”[402] There can be no doubt that this
Holbein of the subsidy roll was the artist. The amount of his fee, £30,
corresponds with the salary he received from the royal purse, while
Holbein’s will gives his place of residence as the parish of St. Andrew
Undershaft.
402. Archæologia, vol. xxxix. p. 17.

HOLBEIN’S According to a story told by Walpole, Holbein once

RESIDENCE IN resided in a house on London Bridge. He says: “The
LONDON father of Lord Treasurer Oxford passing over London
Bridge, was caught in a shower, and stepping into a goldsmith’s shop for
shelter, he found there a picture of Holbein (who had lived in that house)
and his family. He offered the goldsmith 100l. for it, who consented to
let him have it, but desired first to show it to some persons. Immediately
after happened the fire of London, and the picture was destroyed.”[403]
This story is apparently a mere legend, and there is no evidence to
support it; nor is it very probable that an important painting by Holbein
would have remained in the same small house for more than one hundred
and twenty years. Dallaway, in his notes to Walpole, includes in a
supplementary list of works by Holbein in England a small picture of
Holbein, his wife, four boys, and a girl, at Mereworth Castle, Kent,
which he suggests may be either a repetition or the original picture of the
London Bridge story; but in the first place, Holbein never had a family of
four sons, and, secondly, the picture bears no traces of Holbein’s manner.
He quotes Gilpin’s description of it: “As a whole, it has no effect; but the
heads are excellent. They are not painted in the common flat style of
Holbein, but with a round, firm, glowing pencil, and yet exact imitation
of nature is preserved—the boys are very innocent, beautiful characters.”
If some such “family” picture existed in London at that time, it is much
more likely to have been a copy or a replica of the genuine family group
in the Basel Gallery.
403. Walpole, Anecdotes, ed. Wornum, i. p. 86, note.
 The favour with which Holbein was now regarded at court is shown
by the frequency with which he received a year’s or half a year’s salary
in advance, a mark of royal condescension which was most unusual.
Thus under “September Ao xxxi” (1539) is the following entry: “Item
paide by the Kingis highnesse commaundement certefied by my lorde
privyseales lettres to Hans Holbenne, paynter, in the advauncement of
his hole yeres wagis beforehande, aftre the rate of xxx li. by yere, which
yeres advauncement is to be accompted from this present Michaelmas,
and shall ende ultimo Septembris next commynge, the somme of xxx
li.”[404] Notwithstanding this payment in advance, it appears, as already
pointed out,[405] from the four following quarterly entries in the
accounts having reference to Holbein, from Michaelmas 1539 to
Midsummer 1540, that he continued to receive his salary of £7, 10s. each
quarter as usual.[406] If these entries are to be depended upon, he clearly
received his money twice over, either by accident, owing to carelessness
in the keeping of the King’s accounts, or of set purpose as a further
reward for his services.
404. C.L.P., vol. xiv. pt. ii. p. 313, The King’s Payments, f. 90 b; and Archæologia, vol. xxxix. p.
9.

405. See p. 180.

406. The first of these was due to him, and not covered by the year’s advance.

HIS WORK In September 1540 he received an advance of half

ABOUT THE a year: “September, Ao xxxii—Item paide to Hans
COURT Holbyn, the Kingis paynter, in advauncement of his
wagis for one half yere beforehande, the same half yere accompted and
reconned fromme Michaelmas last paste, the somme of xv li.” This time,
however, he did not receive his salary twice over, for in the two
following entries, at Michaelmas and Christmas, 1540, the accounts
merely state: “Item, for Hans Holbyn, paynter, wages, nihil, quia prius
per warrantum.” In the following March 1541 he again obtained a half-
year’s advance: “March, Ao xxxii: Item paied to Hans Holben, the
Kingis painter, in advauncement of his half yeres wages before hande,
after the rate of xxx li. by yere, which half yere is accompted to beginne
primo Aprilis Ao xxxij. domini Regis nunc, and shall ende ultimo
Septembris then next ensuynge, the somme of xv li.” The two remaining
entries of which we have record, at Lady Day and Midsummer
following, are as follows: “Item for Hans Holben, paynter, wages, nil,
quia praemanibus”; and “Item for Hans Holbyn, paynter, nihil, quia
prius.” The volume of accounts closes with the payments for this quarter,
and no details of the royal expenditure during the next two years and a
half exist, so that there is no record of the salary Holbein received for the
remaining years of his life. In a later volume of Tuke’s accounts, as
treasurer of the household, extending from October, 35 Hen. VIII (1543)
to November, 36 Hen. VIII (1544), the first quarterly payments are for
Christmas 1543, and Holbein’s name does not occur in them, as he had
then been dead for about two months. It is rather strange, however, that it
does not appear among the Christmas payments with “Nihil quia
mortuus” after it, as this was the usual procedure in case of death. This
omission, however, may have been due to the fact that he had once again
received his salary beforehand.
The remaining years of Holbein’s life must have been busy ones,
judging from the number of preliminary studies for portraits of the men
and women of Henry’s court which exist in the Windsor Collection and
in many of the great European museums. These drawings are all undated,
and cover the whole period of his English career, but there are so many
of them that his time must have been always fully occupied. It is strange,
therefore, that so few of his finished portraits can be ascribed with any
certainty to the year 1540. Although it was by no means his invariable
custom to put the date on his paintings, yet this was his more usual
practice, and there is no known picture by him which is inscribed 1540,
though there are a few dated 1541 and 1542. Several portraits of the
Howard family can be given with some certainty to the earlier year, but
beyond this nothing has been so far discovered. It may be suggested, as
some explanation of this, that Holbein paid another visit to Basel during
the last quarter of 1540, as the two years’ leave of absence granted him
by the Town Council came to an end in the middle of October. The
Council, who had been paying his wife the promised yearly pension of
forty gulden, expected him to make Basel his permanent residence on the
completion of this further extension of leave. The terms of their
agreement with him were fairly generous, and it is not to be supposed
that the painter would risk losing his rights of citizenship and the
stoppage of the pension to his wife through a total disregard of the
Council’s wish. It seems possible, therefore, that he went over to
Switzerland in order to make personal application for a further and
longer leave of absence in England than the agreement of 1538
permitted. Unlike many of the foreign artists and artificers then resident
in this country, he never became a naturalised British subject, and this,
no doubt, was due to the fact that he was determined to end his days as a
citizen of Basel, and regarded his residence here as merely a temporary
one, and England as a profitable field which, as time passed, would
become worked out. He could not, of course, foresee that he was to be
suddenly cut down when a comparatively young man and still in the full
maturity of his powers. At Michaelmas in the year in question he
received half a year’s salary in advance, so that it was impossible for him
to leave England permanently for some time to come.
In the summer of 1540 Holbein lost another of his English patrons.
Henry formally divorced Anne of Cleves on the 12th of July, and on the
28th of the same month Thomas Cromwell, then Earl of Essex, who had
been a good friend to the painter, was beheaded for high treason, after a
period of eight years during which his influence with both King and
Parliament had been paramount. During the same month Henry privately
married Catherine, daughter of Lord Edmund Howard, a cousin of Anne
Boleyn, and niece of Thomas, third Duke of Norfolk. By this marriage
the Howards, and through them the Catholic party, regained that
ascendancy in the councils of the King which had received a severe
check at the fall of Anne Boleyn; and at least three members of this
family were painted by Holbein. The new Queen was publicly
acknowledged on August 8 at Hampton Court Palace.

MINIATURES OF
Although it was to be supposed that Henry would
CATHERINE employ Holbein to paint the portrait of his new
HOWARD queen, until quite recently the only known likeness of
her from his brush was the miniature portrait in the royal collection at
Windsor Castle, and the replica of it belonging to the Duke of
Buccleuch. In 1909, however, the discovery was made by Mr. Lionel
Cust of a genuine and very beautiful portrait of this Queen. In the
Windsor miniature (Pl. 31 (4)),[407] which shows her in a similar
position to the one in the newly-discovered picture, she is represented
nearly to the waist, turned to the left, her hands folded in front of her, the
left over the right. Her hair and eyes are brown, and she wears a circular
hood of the then fashionable French pattern, with a fall of black velvet.
Her square-cut bodice is of dark cloth of gold, with sleeves of grey-green
silk embroidered with gold, and white ruffles with black embroidery.
Round her neck, over the white cambric filling of the dress, falls an
elaborate necklace of pearls, rubies, and sapphires. The background,
which is bright blue, has no inscription. It is painted on the back of a
playing card, the eight of diamonds, and is 2⅓ inches in diameter. The
hands, and the lower part of the arms, are badly painted, and appear to be
a later addition.
407. Woltmann, 271. Reproduced by Law, Pl. vii.; Knackfuss, fig. 132; Williamson, History of
Portrait Miniatures, Pl. ii. No. 2; Pollard, Henry VIII, p. 245; Ganz, Holbein, p. 149 (4),
and Cust, Burlington Magazine, July 1910, p. 195.

Nothing is known of its history, or as to the date of its acquisition, but

it did not belong to the Crown in Tudor or Stuart days. Dr. Ganz
describes it as badly over-painted, and possibly only a copy. Doubts have
been thrown from time to time on its right to be called a portrait of
Catherine Howard. Mr. Ernest Law considers the attribution to be “very
problematical indeed,” and states that it “does not at all accord with the
Holbein drawing inscribed as ‘Queen Katherine Howard.’”[408] In this
he follows earlier writers. Nichols says that though the position and
head-dress of the drawing agree with the miniature, “the features do not
appear to correspond.”[409] It is difficult, however, to agree with them in
this, for a careful comparison of the two makes it quite evident that they
represent the same lady. The version belonging to the Duke of Buccleuch
is almost identical with the Windsor miniature, but is a better work and
slightly smaller, being only two inches in diameter. It was last publicly
exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, in 1909.[410] It was formerly
in the collection of the Earl of Arundel, and when there was etched by
Hollar in 1646. It was afterwards owned by Jonathan Richardson the
younger (1694-1771), and subsequently by Horace Walpole. Walpole
describes it as: “Catherine Howard, a miniature, damaged, it was
Richardson’s, who bought it out of the Arundelian collection. It is
engraved among the Illustrious Heads [of Houbraken]; and by Hollar,
who called it Mary, Queen of France, wife of Charles Brandon, Duke of
Suffolk.”[411] In this he is wrong, for no name is attached to it in
Hollar’s etching, and it was first identified as Catherine Howard by Mr.
Cust. In his Description of Strawberry Hill, however, Walpole calls it
merely “a lady painted by Holbein,” and says that it is “probably Mary
Tudor, Queen of France, sister of Henry VIII, but among the Illustrious
Heads called Catherine Howard.” According to Granger, it was Vertue
who first named it Mary, Queen of France. The Duke of Buccleuch also
possesses a small oil painting on panel, 5⅜ in. × 4½ in., which was
likewise at the Burlington Fine Arts Club (Case C, 24). It is inscribed, by
a hand later than that of the painter of the portrait, “Catherine Howard
Henry VIII.” According to Scharf, this is “apparently a French work,
and, indeed, thoroughly so in personal characteristics.”[412] It is in the
style of Clouet, and the compilers of the Burlington Fine Arts Club
catalogue suggest that it may represent Anne de Pisseleu, Duchesse
d’Estampes.
408. Law, Holbein’s Pictures, &c., p. 24. This was before Mr. Cust’s discovery of the larger
portrait.

409. Archæologia, vol. xl. p. 78.

410. Case C, 4. Reproduced in Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue, Pl. xxxiii.;
Ganz, Holbein, p. 148 (4); and Cust, Burlington Magazine, July 1910, p. 195. Only a part
of one hand is shown.

411. Walpole, Anecdotes, ed. Wornum, i. pp. 94-5. Hollar’s etching (Parthey, 1546) is
reproduced by Ganz, Holbein, p. 198 (3); and by Cust, Burlington Magazine, July 1910, p.
195.

412. Archæologia, vol. xl. p. 87. Reproduced in Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue, Pl. xxxiv.

The Windsor drawing[413] bears no inscription, and the sitter is

turned to the right, as in Hollar’s engraving, instead of to the left, but
otherwise it shows the same type of features, smooth auburn hair, and
French cap or hood, as in the miniature. The dress, however, in Holbein’s
usual fashion, is merely indicated with a few lines, showing a plain
bodice cut square, filled in with white cambric, with a diamond-shaped
opening revealing neck and bosom. It agrees in the same way with the
newly-discovered portrait, of which, though reversed, it is evidently one
of the preliminary studies. The identity with Catherine Howard is further
proved, as Mr. Lionel Cust points out, by the family resemblance, plainly
visible, in certain of the features, such as the over-accentuated lower jaw,
to the portraits of her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, and of his son, the ill-
fated Earl of Surrey.
413. Woltmann, 329; Wornum, ii. 9; Holmes, i. 42. Reproduced in Burlington Magazine, vol.
xvii., July 1910, p. 195, together with the two miniatures and Hollar’s etching.

PORTRAIT OF In 1898 the Trustees of the National Portrait

CATHERINE Gallery acquired a portrait of Catherine Howard[414]
HOWARD at the sale of the Cholmondeley pictures at Condover
Hall, Shropshire, which closely follows the Windsor drawing, although
in the reverse position. The excellence of the painting of the hands, and
of the details of the dress and jewels, led at first to the supposition that it
might be a genuine work by Holbein which had undergone some damage
and restoration, but closer examination proved that it was merely a
careful contemporary school copy, or repetition of some lost original. It
is inscribed “E 21,” which corresponds with the known facts of
Catherine Howard’s life. In the summer of 1909 the original picture of
which it is a copy was submitted to Mr. Cust, who recognised it at once
as not only a portrait of Catherine Howard, but as most possibly a
genuine work of the great master, which proved to be the case on the
removal of much dirty varnish and some repaints.[415] It came from a
private collection in the west of England, where it had formed part of a
series of historical portraits which had been in the possession of the same
family for several generations, and had been regarded at one time as a
portrait of Eleanor Brandon, Countess of Cumberland, and at another as
Princess Mary Tudor. It is now in Canada, in the collection of Mr. James
H. Dunn.
414. No. 1119. Reproduced by Pollard, Henry VIII, p. 268; and in the Illustrated Catalogue,
National Portrait Gallery, vol. i. p. 25.

415. See Cust, Burlington Magazine, vol. xvii., July 1910, pp. 193-9, reproduced, frontispiece;
and by Ganz, Holbein, p. 126.

Henry’s fifth Queen is shown seated, at a little more than half length,
turned to the left. The hands are in the same position as in the miniature,
though the fingers are more closely interlaced. Her hair is auburn, parted
in the middle, and the eyes are blue-grey. She wears, too, a costume of a
similar fashion, though of different materials. The circular French hood,
with its heavy band of gold ornament and black fall, appears to be the
same, but the dress is of black satin, with a square black velvet yoke
across the bosom, open at the neck and turned back to show the white
lining. A band or piping of gold ornament elaborately pierced, with pairs
of gold tags at intervals, runs along the outer seam of the sleeves from
shoulder to wrist, and the white ruffles are embroidered all over with a
floral design in black. The ornaments she wears are of exceptional
interest, as they afford actual evidence that Holbein not only painted
portraits of royal ladies, but also designed their jewellery. Round her
neck is a small necklace, set with pearls and diamonds, less heavy and
elaborate than the one represented in the miniatures, and of greater
beauty and delicacy of design, to which a large pendant jewel is attached.
At her breast is a brooch from which hangs a circular jewel or medallion
of chased gold work, with a large oblong diamond in the centre, on
which is represented the story of Lot’s wife and the flight from Sodom.
This jewel was designed for Catherine by Holbein. It corresponds
exactly, as Mr. Cust points out, with a most characteristic study, a small
roundel placed within an octagon, among the wonderful series of
Holbein’s original drawings for jewellery in the Print Room of the
British Museum,[416] and thus gives particular interest to a portrait
which in all ways forms a very important addition to the master’s work,
both on account of the brilliance of its execution and of its value as an
historical document. Suspended from a chain round her waist hangs a
still larger circular jewel, only the upper part of which is seen. That
portion of the subject which is visible represents two angels with hands
raised in adoration on either side of a crowned and bearded figure, most
possibly the Almighty. The background of the portrait is a plain one, of
Holbein’s favourite blue, across which is inscribed, as in the National
Portrait Gallery copy, “E 21,” on either side of the head. It is on
an oak panel 29 inches high by 20 inches wide. It must have been
painted between August 1540, the date of her marriage, and November
1541, when she was deprived of her dignity as Queen, and forbidden to
wear jewels; most probably in the latter year, according to Mr. Cust,
which would correspond with her accepted age at the time of her
marriage. Its importance and its genuineness have been accepted by such
leading authorities as Dr. Bode, Dr. Friedländer, Dr. Paul Ganz, and Sir
Sidney Colvin.
416. British Museum Catalogue, 35(E) Vol. ii. p. 339. Reproduced in Burlington Magazine, vol.
xvii., July 1910, p. 195. See p. 283 and Pl. 50 (2).

Catherine Howard’s reign as Queen of England was a short one. There

is no need to describe her tragic fate in detail. Before the close of the
year 1541 it was discovered that not only had she had two lovers, one of
them her cousin Francis Dereham, before her marriage, but that she had
also been unfaithful to the King almost from the beginning of her
married life, her paramour being one of her gentlemen, Thomas
Culpeper. The Queen and her accomplice, Lady Rochford, were confined
in Syon House, pending a parliamentary inquiry. Dereham and Culpeper
were tried at Guildhall in December, pleaded guilty, and were hanged at
Tyburn twelve days afterwards; and in February 1542, Catherine and
Lady Rochford were condemned to death, and were beheaded on the
13th of the month, on the same spot on which the Queen’s cousin, Anne
Boleyn, had suffered the same penalty for the same crime.
This fresh tragedy in his life greatly aged the King, as can be seen in
the portraits of him painted about this period, usually attributed to Lucas
Hornebolt. A month after the execution, Marillac wrote to Francis I, on
March 17, 1542, that Henry was “already very stout and daily growing
heavier, much resembling his maternal grandfather, King Edward, being
about his age, in loving rest and fleeing trouble. He seems very old and
grey since the mishap (malheur) of this last queen, and will not yet hear
of taking another, although he is ordinarily in company of ladies, and his
ministers beg and urge him to marry again.”[417]
417. C.L.P., vol. xvii. 178.
 The portrait of Thomas Howard, third Duke of
PORTRAIT OF Norfolk, uncle by marriage to Henry VIII, was
THOMAS
HOWARD painted at about the same time as that of Catherine
Howard. The inscriptions on the fine original version
by Holbein in Windsor Castle (Pl. 25),[418] and the excellent
contemporary copy in Arundel Castle, both state that it was taken in his
sixty-sixth year, and as he is said to have been born in 1473, this gives
the date of the picture as 1539 or early in 1540. He is shown standing, at
half-length, slightly turned to the left. He is wearing a doublet of dusky
red silk, edged with brown fur, and a white collar embroidered with
black silk. His outer robe of dark velvet has a deep collar and border of
ermine, and on his head is a plain, flat black hat, without a badge, over a
black skull-cap which covers the ears. In his left hand he holds the long
white wand of his office of Lord High Treasurer, and in his right the
shorter gold baton, tipped with black, which he carried as hereditary Earl
Marshal of England. Across the shoulders hangs the magnificent and
richly-jewelled collar of the Order of the Garter with the pendant
George, which is painted with all Holbein’s wonderful mastery in the
clear rendering of minute ornament. The face, clean-shaven, and of a
brown complexion, displays remarkable subtlety in the delineation of a
proud and cruel nature. The cold, unflinching eyes, the thin, compressed
lips with their faint, ironic smile, and the bony hands clasping the staves,
reveal the sitter’s true character as it has come down to us in the pages of
history, pride of race, cruelty almost remorseless in its pursuit of power,
and inflexibility of purpose both in personal aggrandisement and in the
service of his royal master.
418. Woltmann, 267. Reproduced by Law, Pl. vi.; Davies, p. 179; Knackfuss, fig. 133; Pollard,
Henry VIII, p. 188; Ganz, Holbein, p. 123.

The background is green, and across the top of the panel runs the
inscription: “T · D · · N · M ·
T ·I · · · · .” It is now
almost illegible, through the passage of time and over-painting, but can
be deciphered by the aid of the exactly similar inscription on the Arundel
picture. This, as already stated, gives the date of the portrait as about
1540. The inscription, however, is not contemporary, but was probably
added some hundred years later, in the reign of Charles I, when the
picture was in the collection of the Earl of Arundel. It was finely etched
by Vorsterman when in the Earl’s possession, in 1630, though without
the inscription, but beneath the plate is engraved: “Hans Holbein pinxit.
Visitur in Ædibus Arondelianis Londini.” This does not necessarily prove
that the inscription on the panel did not exist at that date, as Vorsterman
may have omitted it as disfiguring. That it was certainly there fifteen
years later is proved by a coloured drawing on vellum by Philip
Fruytiers, the Antwerp painter, dated 1645, a copy of a study by Van
Dyck representing a large group of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, his
wife, and family. On the wall in the background Van Dyck had inserted,
and Fruytiers has copied, on the one side, this very portrait of the Duke
of Norfolk by Holbein, in which the inscription across the top of it in
gold letters can be plainly seen, and on the other side the portrait of his
son, the Earl of Surrey, also evidently a work by Holbein, though the
original painting is now lost, which is inscribed: “H H E
S 25.” This water-colour drawing, which is
signed “An. Vandyke inv. Ph. Fruytiers fecit 1645,” is in the collection of
the Duke of Sutherland, and there is a small copy of it in oils on copper
at Norfolk House, which also shows the inscription. It was engraved by
Vertue in 1743. The original sketch or composition by Van Dyck has
been lost.
 V . II., P 25
THOMAS HOWARD, DUKE OF NORFOLK
W C

PORTRAIT OF
It is supposed that the Windsor version is the one
THOMAS which was in the Arundel Collection, but its
 HOWARD subsequent history is uncertain. That collection was
divided in 1686, and the share which fell to the Duke of Norfolk may
possibly have contained this portrait of his ancestor.[419] The Duke’s
pictures were sold in 1692, and nothing further is to be heard of this
portrait until it is mentioned by Walpole as being then (1762) in
Leicester House, at that time the dower-house of the Dowager Princess
of Wales, widow of Frederick, Prince of Wales.[420] “There can be no
doubt,” says Mr. Ernest Law, “that the picture passed, on the death of the
Princess in 1772, into the possession of the Crown with the rest of the
collection which had been formed by Prince Frederick.”[421] It is not
known from whom that Prince acquired it, but many of his pictures were
purchased for him on the Continent by his agent, Bagnols, and it is not
unlikely that Woltmann’s surmise is correct, and that it is to be identified
with the portrait of the Duke which appeared in the catalogue of an
anonymous sale of pictures at Amsterdam on April 23, 1732, as “Een
zeer konstig uitmuntent stuk door Hans Holbeen, zynde de Hartog van
Nortfolk nooit zoo goet gezien,” which must have been a fine work, as it
fetched the relatively high price of 1120 florins.[422] It is quite possible,
therefore, that the portrait was one of those sold by Lord Stafford in
Amsterdam in 1654, immediately after the death of the Countess of
Arundel, and that it was never in the possession of the Duke of Norfolk,
but remained in that town until 1732.
419. The only portrait of the Duke mentioned in the Arundel inventory of 1655 has no artist’s
name placed against it, but it comes next to the portrait of the Earl of Surrey, which is
given to Holbein. It is entered as “Ritratto de Tomaso Howard, Ducha de Nordfolk.”

420. Walpole, Anecdotes, &c., ed. Wornum, i. p. 83.

421. Law, Holbein’s Pictures, &c., p. 19.

422. Woltmann, ii. pp. 57 and 156.

The copy at Arundel Castle, about which still less is known, is so good
that it is only when it is placed side by side with the Windsor version, as
it was in the Tudor Exhibition in 1890, that the latter is seen to be by far
the finer work of the two. The Arundel picture is slightly the smaller, and
was last exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909 (No. 49).
There is a second version of this portrait in the Norfolk collection, at
Norfolk House, in which various alterations have been made in the
position and the dress, and a more elaborate background has been added.
It is a work of comparatively little merit, and appears to have been
painted during the seventeenth century by some inferior artist.
 At the time he sat to Holbein the Duke was at the height of his power.
He had been the bitter enemy of both Wolsey and Cromwell, and had
assisted to bring about the downfall of both, and had arrested the latter
with his own hands. After Cromwell’s execution he became the most
powerful of Henry’s subjects, and reached his highest summit of
greatness. His influence over the King, however, waned after the fall of
his niece, Catherine Howard, when he was supplanted by his enemies,
the Earl of Hertford and the Seymours. In 1546 he was attainted, together
with his son, the Earl of Surrey, for high treason, and only escaped the
latter’s fate by the death of the King on the day the warrant for his
execution was made out. He remained in the Tower throughout the reign
of Edward VI, but was released on the accession of Queen Mary in 1553,
and his titles and estates were restored to him, but he only lived to enjoy
them for a year.
 V . II., P 26
HENRY HOWARD, EARL OF SURREY
Wrongly inscribed “Thomas Howard”
Drawing in black and coloured chalks
W C

That Holbein painted his son, Henry, Earl of

PORTRAITS OF
HENRY Surrey, is proved by the small portrait on the wall in
HOWARD
 Fruytiers’ version of Van Dyck’s picture of the
Arundel family. The inscription on this miniature copy gives his age as
twenty-five; and as he was born about 1517, Holbein must have painted
him about 1541. He is represented with reddish hair and beard, and
brown eyes, the head slightly turned to the right, and wears a black cap
with a feather, and a black mantle from the folds of which the right hand
appears. There is a small drawing in the Windsor Collection wrongly
inscribed “Tho. Howard E. of Surrey,”[423] which bears some likeness
to the Earl in the Fruytiers drawing, and is supposed to represent Henry
Howard. It is badly rubbed, and has suffered from retouching and certain
coarse alterations, and has the slightly-wavering touch which marks the
so-called “Melanchthon” in the same collection. It is apparently the
original study for the portrait which was engraved by Hollar when it was
in the Arundel Collection.[424] There are two other heads at Windsor
also named Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, but the attribution cannot be
correct, as Surrey’s son, Thomas, was a small boy of only six or seven at
the time of Holbein’s death. Whether the drawings represent the poet
himself is also doubtful. One of them, inscribed “Thomas Earl of Surry”
(Pl. 26),[425] in which he is shown full-face, clean-shaven, with hair cut
straight across the forehead and partly covering the ears, and wearing a
black cap with scalloped edges and an ostrich feather, is one of the finest
drawings in the whole collection, conspicuous for the delicacy of the
modelling and the freedom and expressiveness of the draughtsmanship.
The face is one of considerable charm, which is not to be seen in the
third drawing,[426] inscribed “Tho. Earle of Surry,” perhaps a little later
in date, in which the head is turned slightly to the left, and the hair
entirely covered with the black skull-cap he wears beneath the feathered
bonnet. The dress is only slightly indicated, and is rubbed, and a circular
medallion suspended from a broad ribbon hangs on his breast. A portrait
of his wife is also to be found among the Windsor heads,[427] full-face,
wearing the angular English head-dress with black fall, and a round
jewelled ornament hanging from a chain round her neck, and a second
medallion on her breast. The dress which, like the ornaments, is badly
rubbed, was of rose-coloured velvet, according to a note in Holbein’s
handwriting. The portrait for which this drawing was the study, like that
of her husband, cannot now be traced. The two full-length portraits of
Henry Howard, dated 1546, at Arundel Castle and at Knole respectively,
are usually ascribed to the Netherlandish painter Guillim or Gillam
Stretes, on account of Strype’s statement, already quoted,[428] that in
1551 the Privy Council ordered a picture “of the late Earl of Surrey,
attainted,” to be fetched away from “the said Guillim’s house.” The
Duke of Norfolk’s version of the portrait[429] has a very elaborate
architectural setting, coarsely painted in stone colour, and apparently of a
somewhat later date than the rest of the picture, while the one belonging
to Lord Sackville at Knole shows the figure only, and is looked upon by
some authorities as the original. The attribution of these two pictures to
Stretes is extremely doubtful. The Arundel portrait, in particular,
suggests the hand of an Italian, and the name of Nicolas Beilin of
Modena may be tentatively suggested. One of them was in the collection
of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, where it was attributed to Holbein.
It is described in the inventory of 1655 as “il ritratto del Conte de Surry
grande del naturale.”
423. Woltmann, 312; Wornum, ii. 8; Holmes, ii. 19.

424. Parthey, 1509. Reproduced by Ganz, Holbein, p. 197 (2). The portrait itself is described in
the Arundel inventory of 1655 as “Ritratto de Henrico Howard, Conte de Surrey.”

425. Woltmann, 314; Wornum, ii. 6; Holmes, i. 20. Reproduced by Davies, p. 180, and
elsewhere.

426. Woltmann, 313; Wornum, i. 35; Holmes, i. 21.

427. Woltmann, 330; Wornum, ii. 24; Holmes, i. 22.

428. See p. 168.

429. Exhib. Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1909, No. 54. Reproduced Arundel Club, 1907, No. 3;
Pollard, Henry VIII, p. 284.

Only three dated works of the year 1541 remain; the two fine portraits
of men in the Berlin and Vienna Galleries, and the miniature of Charles
Brandon, the younger son of the Duke of Suffolk. The Berlin panel,[430]
(No. 586 C), is inscribed at the top, in gold, on either side of the cap,
“ANNO 1541,” and lower down, in smaller letters, level with the sitter’s
ears: “ETATIS : SVÆ : 37.” The coat of arms, enamelled in red and white, on
the gold ring on his left hand, indicates that in all probability this young
man was a member of the Dutch family of Vos van Steenwijk, though the
writer has failed to trace the name, or any indication of a sojourn in or
visit to England on the part of its bearer, in the Calendars of the English
State Papers. It is a half-length portrait, considerably less than life-size,
head and body turned to the right, but both eyes shown. The eyes are
grey, and the finely painted beard and moustache are a reddish brown. In
his clasped hands he holds a pair of brown gloves. He wears a black silk
under-dress and a surcoat of black or very dark brown, with the collar
turned over to show the lining of black watered silk, and his flat cap of
the same colour has a turned-down brim. He is gazing to the spectator’s
right with a far-away and slightly melancholy look in his eyes, which are
wonderfully painted, as is the beautiful and expressive left hand. It
comes from the Von Sybel, Elberfeld, Merlo of Cologne, and Suermondt
collections, having been purchased from the last-named owner in 1874.
430. Woltmann, 117. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 134; Ganz, Holbein, p. 128.
 V . II., P 27
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN YOUNG MAN
1541
I G ,V
 The picture of an unknown man, aged twenty-
PORTRAIT OF A eight, at Vienna[431] (No. 1479) (Pl. 27), is still finer
MAN WITH A in expression, and, indeed, is one of the most brilliant
FALCON.
portraits of Holbein’s later years. It is one of his
customary half-length figures, less than life-size, seated at a table, the
body turned to the right, and the face looking out at the spectator. His
doublet is of purple-brown silk, and over it he wears the usual black
cloak with a deep collar and lining of brown fur, and black cap with a
brim. The collar of his white shirt is beautifully embroidered with black
Spanish work and tied with black laces. His grey gloves are held in his
left hand, and his right rests on the olive-green cloth of the table, the
forefinger being thrust within the pages of a gilt-edged book, near which
is placed an inkstand with a red cord. On one of his rings is an intaglio.
The clean-shaven face, showing blue on chin and upper lip, is of a ruddy
brown complexion, and the hair, which does not cover the ears, is almost
concealed by the hat. The unknown sitter, who appears to be an
Englishman, is comely in features, and the eyes have a far-seeing,
visionary expression, which Holbein has rendered with extraordinary
vividness and subtlety of drawing. The upper part of the background
consists of a blue-grey wall, with wooden panelling, or the back of a
long wooden seat, below, and the panel is inscribed on either side of the
head: “ANNO · DNI · 1541 · ETATIS · SVÆ · 28.” It was in the collection of the
Archduke Leopold William in the seventeenth century. There is an old
copy of this picture in the Palermo Gallery (Woltmann, 223).
431. Woltmann, 254. Reproduced in the Vienna Catalogue, p. 343; Knackfuss, fig. 136; Ganz,
Holbein, p. 127.

To the year 1542 belongs the small portrait of an unknown

Englishman in the Hague Gallery (No. 277) (Pl. 28),[432] which, again,
is brilliant in execution, the details painted with the minutest care, but
with a touch both delicate and free from all hardness, and unusual
richness of colour. The head is full-face, the body turned slightly to the
left. His closely cropped hair is chestnut in colour, turning to red at the
ends of his moustache and short pointed beard. It is almost the only
portrait by Holbein in which the sitter is shown without a hat. He wears a
dress of black velvet and watered silk with a pattern, slashed with red
silk at the shoulder and wrist. On his left hand, which is gloved, stands
his falcon, a large bell on its claw. His right hand, in which he holds the
bird’s hood, is ungloved, with a gold ring set with a stone on the little
finger. The light falls from the right, and the shadow on the left side of
the face is more strongly marked than in most of Holbein’s portraits. The
modelling is fine, the face full of strong character, and, as usual, the
hands are most expressively painted, the whole presentment being most
vivid and life-like. The background is a plain blue-grey, of much the
same tone as that in the portrait of 1541 at Vienna. Across the panel is
inscribed, on either side of the head, the date 1542, and lower down
“ANNO · ETATIS · SVÆ · XXVIII.” Little is known about the history of this
picture, except that it was at one time in the royal collections of England,
and that it was taken to Holland by William III, and was included in the
list of works of art reclaimed by Queen Anne after that King’s death.
[433] Like the portrait of Cheseman, however, it remained abroad. It is
inscribed on the back “The manner of Holbein,” and in old catalogues
was absurdly described as a portrait of Sir Thomas More.
432. Woltmann, 160. Reproduced by Mantz, p. 171; Ganz, Holbein, p. 129.

433. No. 21. “A man’s head with a hawk by Holbein.”

 V . II., P 28
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN MAN WITH A FALCON
1542
R P G ,M ,T H